Appeal No. 94-3999
Application 08/083,863
manipulation of a selected file, manipulation of a particular icon or the utilization of a peripheral system.
A finite ordered series of substantive activities would be two or more sequential, substantive activities.
Accordingly, the meaning of this claim language is clear from appellants’ specification.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellants have argued the patentability of the claims at bar without drawing any distinction
between the claims. Accordingly, the claims stand or fall together. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567,
1570, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented by both the examiner and the
appellants, we have concluded that this rejection should be sustained. We agree in general with the
comments made by the examiner; we add the following discussion for emphasis.
The examiner’s position is to the effect that the claims are broad and that they are anticipated
by any computer access granting process including those of the cited prior art references, and that the
claims are readable on the mere activation of windows in the DOS environment or the activation of any
application in the Apple Macintosh environment. It is argued that any time an operator double clicks on
an icon, or resets the control panel to allocate a specific resource, the operator performs a substantive
activity. The references are relied on as teaching computer systems wherein substantive activities are
performed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007